ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Camel milk
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing demand for natural food preservation methods has drawn attention to lactic acid bacteria (LAB) due to their antimicrobial potential. In this study, two mixed LAB cultures (MCP1 and MCP2), composed of four Methods: Nineteen initial LAB isolates were screened for safety, low-temperature growth, CO₂ production, antibacterial and antioxidant activity, and inter-strain compatibility. Selected strains were identified by MALDI-TOF MS and 16S rRNA sequencing, and their acidifying power was assessed. Results: MCP2 showed a strong inhibitory effect on total aerobic mesophilic count (TAMC), with a significant 2.66 log₁₀ CFU/g reduction (-24.18%) after six days. Both cultures reduced total coliforms (TC), while MCP1 demonstrated superior antistaphylococcal activity, achieving a 5.55 log₁₀ CFU/g reduction (-50.45%) in Staphylococcus aureus after 10 days. MCP2 achieved a lesser reduction of 1.89 log₁₀ CFU/g (-17.18%). Conclusion: These findings highlight the potential of camel-derived LAB as natural protective cultures for meat biopreservation, reducing spoilage and enhancing microbial safety. Further studies should explore their effects on sensory attributes and integration with packaging technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.